Biblical Rebuke
A Brief Summary of PeaceMakers International's practices
Expanded description's practices
May 7th 2001- Broken fellowship by Peacemaker Ministries against

NOTE: is so named since 1983, long before the "Christian Conciliation Service" began promoting it's self as Peacemaker Ministries to take advantage of Mr. Sande's book "The Peacemaker" published in 1991 and later (I think 1995) changed it's public name.  Mr. Sande and CCS were well aware of as we had been often asked to speak or participate in their conferences and cases, when they made their choice of names.  Therefore, it is a false accusation to say that stole their name.

What is the Biblical foundation for such a Biblical and public rebuke...It is always with great sadness and broken heartedness that there comes a time according to God's Word that those who were once treated as brothers and sisters in Christ must be openly & publicly rebuked in prayer that they might repent. Matthew 18.  It's particularly shaming that this one is called Peacemaker Ministires and His peace.  This is not a conflict between two ministries-this is about fidelity to God's Word and the faithful love and acts of obedience to Christ Jesus.  As Paul says...

"Now in this that I declare {unto you} I praise {you} not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." [1Corinthians 11:17-19]

 "Be not ye therefore partakers with them.  For ye were sometimes darkness, but now {are ye} light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit {is} in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)  Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove {them}.  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.  But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.  [Ephesians 5:7-13]

on Peacemaker Ministries & His Peace website..."We are pleased to note that Focus on the Family will broadcast a two-part radio interview with Ken Sande on April 22 and 23. Ken will speak about biblical peacemaking, with a special emphasis on his new book, Peacemaking For Families. Spread the word and be sure to tune in!"

Peacemaker Ministries & His Peace

"Mr. Ken Sande",  states Rev. Alfred J. Poirier, pastor of Rocky Mountain Community Church of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Billings, MT. "is a member in good standing and an inactive elder in our church."

Here's one example:Pearl in a Pig's snout-Evangelical Hypocrisy,
"{As} a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, {so is} a fair woman which is without discretion." Proverbs 11:22

We know these men...we've treated them as brothers and prayed for their repentance while for years we've tried to reach out to them, to unite in Christ-believeing at a minimum 1Corinthians 3:13-15 "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." now the following requires us to openly/publically rebuke them...

While Dr. James Dobson and Focus On The Family (FOTF) continues to live/operate in open sin by stubbornly rejecting Church Discipline (Matthew 18 in the dispute with the Alexander-Moegerles- (see the beginning of the dispute at  and others, plus Dr. Dobson's and Focus On The Family's uniting with Mormons, Muslims, Hindu and others,  Ken Sande (author of  The Peacemaker-Baker Books) rather than rebuking Dr. Dobson and FOTF for their ungodly practices, instead promotes Dr. Dobson and FOTF as...

From an organization calling it's self and by Ken Sande in Montana/USA his website affirms...."indicates that an organization has affirmed the Peacemaker's Pledge and is a Partner in Peacemaking....
Focus on the Family
Forty managers at Focus on the Family received a day and a half of custom Peacemaker training in 1996. Several staff members subsequently completed the entire Conciliator Training Program and have been teaching peacemaking within the organization. Ken Sande spoke at their 1997 and 1999 Attorney Conferences. Focus on the Family has published two articles on biblical peacemaking, one in the June, 1998, edition of Pastor's Family, and the second in the November,1998, edition of Teachers in Focus."
The President, of Peacemake Ministries-His Peace, Mr. Ken Sande told me he wants to earn the right to teach and be heard by Dr. Dobson-and today's Evangelical leaders, in hopes they will someday practice peacemaking.  Jesus Christ already is that and Dobson continues to refuse Biblical Reconciliation through Church Discipline, and Sande knows it!  So Sande has built an organization that let's people affirm a pledge and continue living in open sin...Sande has their blood on his hands and head, may God grant Mr. Sande and his staff repentance....

Christ says "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

Christ also says: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear {thee, then} take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell {it} unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."  [Matthew 18:15-17]


Hi Ken while surfing your site to get info for a referral I found this...

Focus on the Family
Forty managers at Focus on the Family received a day and a half of custom
Peacemaker training in 1996. Several staff members subsequently completed
the entire Conciliator Training Program and have been teaching peacemaking
within the organization. Ken Sande spoke at their 1997 and 1999 Attorney
Conferences. Focus on the Family has published two articles on biblical
peacemaking, one in the June, 1998, edition of Pastor's Family, and the
second in the November,1998, edition of Teachers in Focus.

You've shamed yourself....


1/22/2001 reply by Ken Sande

Dear Bill,

I was surprised to receive your recent messages. As I recall, you and I had previously discussed and recognized that we have very different views about the Dobson/Alexander-Moegerle situation. The information about our training with Focus on the Family has been on our web site for three years, so I thought you were already aware of that activity. Moreover, to my knowledge Focus has never signed a pledge regarding its views on conflict resolution. (If something on our web site indicates otherwise, I will certainly correct it.)

As I understand your position, you believe that you have legitimately exercised authoritative church discipline against Dr. Dobson, and all other believers are required by God to respect your decision and treat him and his entire organization as we would “a pagan or a tax collector.”  As I have indicated before, based on my understanding of the facts in that case and my view of ecclesiology, I disagree with your position.

Given the strong language in your recent messages, you clearly believe that I have committed a grave wrong by not agreeing with you. It is your prerogative to present a complaint to Peacemaker Ministries’ board of directors and, if I am accused of personal sin, to the elder board of my church (see attached policy). If either board concludes that your complaint is valid, I will submit to their correction. Our board of directors is comprised of six individuals, one of whom is my pastor. I have no seat on the Board. There are nine elders in our church, and only my pastor serves on the ministry board. Not one of these people would hesitate to firmly confront me and insist that I repent if they think I have committed a serious sin or error in judgment.

If you chose to submit a complaint, please provide thorough background information in order for the board to fairly consider your position. Based on what I know of our board, I believe they will be particularly interested in understanding the ecclesiastical basis for your position (i.e., what authority you believe you had to pronounce discipline against Dr. Dobson, and what process you followed in doing so). It would be helpful if you would support your position with as much Scripture and concrete evidence as possible (e.g., copies of letters or board minutes).

I believe the board will want to know to whom you are accountable in case they decide it is necessary to seek additional information from or otherwise communicate with the other men who lead your ministry. In addition, they will want to know at the outset what respect you will show for their evaluation and conclusions. If they agree with you, it will be easy to accept the result. But are you also open to the possibility that they could reasonably disagree with you, or is it your position that everyone who disagrees with you on this matter and works with Focus on the Family is inherently wrong and “has blood on his hands”? Finally, do you want the board to critique only my position and actions toward you, or are you open to receiving their thoughts with regard to your position and actions toward me?

I encourage you to communicate directly with Alfred Poirier, the chairman of our board and pastor of my church, at It will be best for you to communicate in writing (by e-mail or letter) so that he will be able to fully and accurately pass your views on to the other people on the board.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to cooperate with you in resolving our differences in this matter.

Ken Sande
Peacemaker Ministries

1/23/2001 Letter from PeaceMakers

Dear Ken, Gary and Rev. Alfred Poirier...I attempt to present reasonable facts and use God's Word as the should only agree with God...not me or anyone else unless agreement is unified in Christ.

Fact: Dr. James Dobson and Focus have open disputes (since early 1990's) that have failed in steps 1 & 2 of Matthew 18-including a dispute as to why steps one & two failed.

Fact: Dr. Dobson and Focus have never submitted these disputes for judgment by those in stewardhip of God's authority, as taught by Christ.

Fact: Dr. Dobson's former church and pastor in California (H.B.London) refused to hear these issues as well as did the Alexander-Moegerle's home church (Paul Cedar).

Fact: Dr. Dobson's former church pastor (H.B.London-a relative) is now on staff at Focus and a part of another dispute.

Fact: Dr. Dobson has recently become a member of a church in Colorado Springs who stated they will not hear any Biblical disputes concerning Dr. Dobson.

In this light you and your organization say the following on your website...

By God's grace, Peacemaker Ministries has had the privilege of working with many Christian leaders and organizations who share our desire to promote biblical peacemaking (see statement on diversity below). To learn more about these networking contacts, please click one of the following links.

indicates that an organization has affirmed the Peacemaker's Pledge and is a Partner in Peacemaking.

Focus on the Family
Forty managers at Focus on the Family received a day and a half of custom Peacemaker training in 1996. Several staff members subsequently completed the entire Conciliator Training Program and have been teaching peacemaking within the organization. Ken Sande spoke at their 1997 and 1999 Attorney Conferences. Focus on the Family has published two articles on biblical peacemaking, one in the June, 1998, edition of Pastor's Family, and the second in the November,1998, edition of Teachers in Focus.

"Moreover, to my knowledge Focus has never signed a pledge regarding its views on conflict resolution. (If something on our web site indicates otherwise, I will certainly correct it.)"  here's your the word "signed" v "affirmed" in dispute?

This is how I believe you shame yourself...publically and so a public rebuke...


 When PeaceMakers rebuked Mr. Sande he notified Peacemaker Ministires/His Peace Chairman Rev. Alfred Poirier (also Mr. Sande's Pastor) of our rebuke and Rev. Poirier responded as follows...

 Rev. Alfred Poirier, Board Chairman and pastor of Rocky Mountain Community Church of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church  in Billings, MT  wrote on

January 23, 2000

Dear Mr. Fields,

Let me introduce myself. My name is Alfred J. Poirier. I am the pastor of Rocky Mountain Community Church of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church here in Billings, MT. Ken Sande is a member in good standing and an inactive elder in our church. (We have 9 active elders). I also serve as the chairman of the Board for Peacemaker Ministries.

In light of your allegations regarding Ken and Peacemaker Ministries, it seems to me that the judicatory most appropriate to serve you is Peacemaker Ministries Board of Directors. As a Board, we have oversight of Ken. He is bound by our policies and doctrinal statement. Thus, if there are allegation/s of misconduct or doctrinal error they should be filed with us for our examination and response.  Hence, I would appreciate all further correspondence of this nature be directed to the Board through me.

From your response is not clear whether you wish to file a complaint with our Board of Directors asking us to examine Ken’s decision that Peacemaker Ministries continue to serve Focus on the Family and make a favorable mention of that organization on its web site.

As I hope you would agree, we would not, could not, act on mere accusations and general statements, especially those that are reasonably subject to different interpretations or are contradicted by others. (Although we have not discussed the matter in detail, Ken has briefly indicated to me that he specifically disagrees with some of the assertions you have made regarding Focus on the Family’s actions in the dispute you have referenced.)  In order for us to be obedient to Scripture’s command to make judgments only on the basis of convincing evidence, it is our policy that anyone who brings a complaint must support his or her accusations with credible evidence and complete facts.

If you do wish to have the Board exercise its stewardhip responsibilities with regard to this issue, we will need an explicit statement from you to that affect. Once we receive such a statement from you, we will be happy supply you with a list of the questions we would like you to answer to enable us to render a just judgment.

My email is:

Alfred J. Poirier, Pastor

Broken Fellowship with by "Peacemaker Ministries":

April 30th 2001 from Ken Sande...

"...Your third question has to do with how we handle sexual misconduct cases in the church. We strive to work through the same channels described above. If a pastor is proven to have a pattern of abusing children, we recommend that his church remove him from ministry, notify the congregation and former churches of the pattern, and notify civil authorities as required by law. If a church tries to cover up the problem, we encourage the victims’ families to respectfully make these notifications themselves and then trust God to work through those channels. We do not try to step into the role of the church or state ourselves, and we do not stir up a desire for personal revenge or broadcast the information to those who have no legitimate interest in the matter. The same may be said for any sin problem within the church.

I’ve answered these questions out of courtesy and in good faith, Bill, even though your language raises questions about your reasons for asking them. Unfortunately, I do not sense that this dialogue is moving us any closer to understanding or agreement, so I cannot justify spending any more time corresponding with you under the present circumstances. If you want to carry out a meaningful dialogue on these issues, with a sincere desire for us to be like “iron sharpening iron,” you can demonstrate that desire by first removing all of the judgmental information about our ministry that you have posted on your web site. Until then, I will not respond to any further accusations or questions."

Ken Sande

from Bill Fields to all....May 7,2001

Well...this is very interesting...somehow you've come to a point where not talking/being courteous to me is Biblically acceptable because I continue to witness by telling it to the church...and yet you continue your relationship with those who stubbornly refuse and reject Matthew 18...You guys want to explain that?

bill fields          Go back

Background: Progression of this process:

Letter to Rev. Poirier 1/24/2001
Letter to PeaceMakers 1/24/2001
Letter to Rev. Poirier 1/25/2001
Letter to PeaceMakers 2/06/2001
Letter to Rev. Poirier 2/07/2001
Letter to PeaceMakers 2/14/2001
Letter to Rev. Poirier 2/15/2001
Letter to Ken Sande et. al. 3/23/2001 # 3 conflict at Focus On The Family
Letter to Ken Sande 4/13/2001
Letter to PeaceMakers 4/23/2001
Letter to Ken Sande 4/23/2001
Letter to PeaceMakers 6/7/2001

PeaceMakers  wrote, 1/24/2001, in response..."Rev. Poirier and thank you for your quick response.  I have given you my witness. Should I have been unclear or miscommunicated I would be glad to try and answer your questions.  As to credible evidence, as you judge, our website has all the information I have.   Your stewardhip of Christ's authority is in our prayers,"

Dear Rev. Poirier, Ken, Gary and PMI Board...I think what Jay Adams wrote here has bearing on our thinking...

Handbook of Church Discipline
By Dr. Jay E. Adams

Go back

Jay is a brother worthy of Galatians 6:6
To order call Timeless Texts at: 1-800-814-1045

Chapter 10: Cross Congregational Discipline

So far I have been considering discipline within the local church that involves members of the same congregation. Now it is important to tackle the somewhat more complex questions of how to handle the problem of cross?congregational discipline.

Within the same denomination the ways and means for pursuing cross?congregational discipline are usually formalized in a denominational book of government and discipline. If they are not, you should work for a common Book of Discipline that provides for such measures.

What I wish to address in this chapter is the more difficult problem of how to carry on discipline among churches that are not related denominationally.

Bob and Phil, members of two Bible?believing congregations of different persuasions, have broken fellowship over a business deal. Phil. an automobile mechanic, maintains that all the work he did on Bob's car was necessary and, though he charged Bob five hundred dollars, that was a good price for the labor and parts provided; indeed, below the going rate. Bob disagrees. He thinks that Phil did unnecessary work on the car and has stuck him with a huge bill, which he refuses to pay. Bob claims that he told Phil to let him know if the cost would exceed two hundred dollars; Phil says Bob gave no such instructions. Rather, Phil maintains that Bob said, "Go ahead and do whatever has to be done," and indicated no reservations about the cost.

The matter cannot be resolved by going to court (1 Corinthians 6 forbids that-God forbids believers to take other believers to court.), But since they cannot work it out between them, the matter must be settled by the church. Bob has told a number of people at his church what a rotten deal he got and how Phil cheated him. As a result, there is evidence that Phil's business is suffering. Phil has not yet been paid.

Phil goes to his pastor for advice. The pastor says, "It seems to me that since Bob has made the matter public, it can be dealt with on that level. But why don't you take a couple of mutual friends and try once more to work out matters? If you do not succeed, go to his pastor and seek help."

One more a visit is made. Phil and those with him get nowhere. Bob says he will not pay a cent more than two hundred dollars, and he refuses to discuss the issue further. Phil makes an appointment with Bob's pastor, asking him to bring the matter officially before the church. The pastor in turn suggests that all four talk about it; he sets a date for the conference. But nothing comes of their meeting. Both men state and steadfastly maintain their positions. Bob tries to hand Phil a check for two hundred dollars and declares that the matter is over. He wants to hear no more about it. Phil shows the pastor receipts for parts that, apart from extensive labor costs, amount to nearly two hundred dollars in themselves. He refuses to take the check, declaring that to do so is to forfeit his right to a larger sum.

Where does the matter go from here? Regardless of how the issue turns out—which is not our concern at the moment—what steps should Phil take from here on?

Phil has two options. First, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:7 he can determine to accept the loss and drop the whole matter. If he does so, he must be sure he bears no resentment against Bob. In particular he must not speak disparagingly about Bob to others. If Phil drops it, it must be dropped entirely (Incidentally, Phil had this option at earlier stages as well.)

But it would seem from his refusal to accept the check that Phil will want to pursue the matter further. Given his rejection of the first option, what is Phil's second? He may pursue the matter officially before Bob's church. He should inform the pastor that he is not satisfied to let the matter drop and settle for two hundred dollars, especially since he has lost five customers from Bob's church because of what he can only call slanderous gossip on Bob's part. His concern is that the church deal with his charges of theft and slander against Bob.

Before making charges of slander or gossiping, Phil must have evidence to substantiate them. This will consist not only of presenting the bills and receipts that he brought to the first conference, but also being able to call on witnesses to the slanderous statements made to others. If he can produce such evidence, he will be in a position to establish his case. Apart from evidence and witnesses, he should not proceed further (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:1).


All of the foregoing is rather simple and straightforward. But what if Bob's church refuses to hear Phil? What if the pastor says, "Well, Phil, I've done all I can to reconcile the two of you. In our church we don't do anything more; no, we will not discipline Bob." This possibility is not at all unlikely today.

There is no direct biblical instruction about this matter because there was no denominational problem in the first century (although there were interchurch dealings such as the council described in Acts 15). But using the approach stipulated by the words of Christ in Matthew 18, it would seem that the following procedure should be followed:

1. Phil (perhaps with the guidance of his own pastor) should gently read Matthew 18:15ff. to Bob's pastor and urge him and his church to follow the Scriptures in this matter. He should not simply go along with weakness on the part of Bob's church. Rather, in a kind but firm manner, he should insist that, since they call themselves a Bible?believing church, they are bound to do what the Bible requires. Often this sort of kind but strong pressure will prevail.

2. If that action proves to be fruitless, then (on the basis of Matthew 18) he should take someone with him (preferably his own pastor) to confront Bob's pastor. Frequently the matter will be settled at this level.

3. But suppose Bob's pastor refuses to hear them. Then, on the analogy of Matthew 18, he should "tell it to the church." That would probably mean having Phil's elders request a meeting with the elders of Bob's church. If this meeting occurs, Phil's elders may be able to persuade Bob's that this is the biblical thing to do and may be able to help them in conducting a fair trial. The issue in points 2 and 3, please note, is not Phil's losses, but the question of whether Bob's church will follow Matthew 18. The two issues should not be confused.

4. Let us suppose, as too often is true, that Bob's elders refuse to meet or, after meeting, refuse to carry the case further. Then, short of Phil's willingness at this point to drop the whole matter, his church would seem to have but one recourse: again, on the analogy of Matthew 18, Phil's church should declare Bob's church to be "as heathen and publicans." That is to say, they should declare them to be "no church" since they will not draw a line between the world and the church by exercising discipline. (Even if Phil should wish to drop his matter against Bob. the other issue—the dealings between the two churches—should be pursued to its end. A church. declared to be no church. may be restored upon repentance.)

This decision should never be taken unless the most careful and kind attempts have been made to try to effect proper discipline in the other church. But there must come q point at which the matter is set to rest. God will have no loose ends dangling in His church.

5. If Bob's church is declared to be no church by Phil's church, then and only then may Phil treat Bob "as a heathen and a tax collector." If he wishes to do so, Phil may now take Bob to civil court. At times this may be an unwise move, a poor testimony in a community that doesn't understand, and in some cases, even an unloving act if done in bitterness. But the practical possibility now exists. Sometimes it is wiser to drop the matter here (or earlier), and Phil always has that option.

6. If the act of declaring another church to be no church (because it will not define itself by church discipline) is to be carried out, it is important to keep accurate records, testimony, etc., of all that transpired. Moreover, before doing so, the other church should be warned of the possibility of this action.

Let me suggest two variations on this theme. Where a congregation is part of a denomination, the matter should be taken through the procedures prescribed by the denominational standards before taking the step of declaring it no church. In the case of a nondenominational congregation or one in which the denomination does not function in cases of church discipline, it might be advisable to call in one or two other congregations in the community to intercede; if nothing results from this, have those congregations agree also to declare the contumacious congregation to be no church.


There is another matter. Consider this scenario: Frank leaves his wife, Alice, for another woman. All efforts to bring about reconciliation fail. Frank is removed from the midst of his church. Sometime later he divorces Alice and marries the other woman. Several months after the remarriage, Frank decides to unite with another church down the street.

Frank's former pastor calls up the pastor of the second congregation and tells him that Frank was removed from the church of Jesus Christ on proper grounds by church discipline. He says, "We would rejoice if Frank is repentant and if he wants to become a part of your church. We certainly won't stand in his way. But first he has business over here. He must seek Alice's forgiveness and the forgiveness of the congregation. Until then, he isn't eligible for membership in Christ's church anywhere."

If the second pastor responds biblically, Frank will be refused membership unless he repents and does works appropriate to repentance (at a bare minimum, that means settling matters with Alice and the former congregation). But, as in many situations, let us suppose that the second church receives him anyway. Then it would seem that on the analogy of Matthew 18, the two churches must become involved to the point of satisfaction or the unchurching of Frank's new congregation by his former one.

Now, if proper procedures were in effect in the first place, such things would not happen. Whenever a stray sheep wanders into another fold, or whenever a person removed from the midst of one congregation seeks membership in another, he should be dealt with in a way that shows proper respect for the care and the discipline of the congregation to which he belongs. After all, it is difficult enough to get churches to exercise biblical discipline in the first place. How discouraging it is to find that it has been undercut by some other church down the block!


What am I talking about? Well, first let's take up the question of the church hopper. There are times when a person should change churches, but he ought to do so for only the gravest reasons: a major change of doctrinal beliefs, apostasy on the part of the former church, or its failure to exercise discipline. Too many persons wander from church to church for superficial reasons. If the churches in a community were to draw up a procedure to deal with wandering Christians, far more wanderers would be reclaimed. It would resemble something like this interchange:

"Well, it was nice to see you in church Sunday."

"Thank you, pastor, I appreciate your visit."

"Are you new in town?"

"O no! We've lived here for about ten years."

"Then perhaps you have just become Christians or are seeking to find out how to become Christians?"

"No, we've been members of the Hilltop Church since we moved here."

"I see. Well, then you've recently had a change of belief, so you are looking for a church that is more compatible with your new beliefs?"

"No. We just got tired of going there. The people aren't so nice, and I can just tell that we're going to like it much better in your church. Why, your people were so friendly, and here you are already paying us a visit!"  How many pastors and elders are taken in by such flattery!

"Well, I'm certainly happy to hear of the friendly greeting you received, but there seems to be a problem. You know, Joe, your pastor is a Bible believing man. He may not see everything exactly as we do here, but he is a true shepherd and you are one of his flock. If you don't have a better reason for leaving that fold, you really belong there at Hilltop and not somewhere else. If you've had difficulty with some of the people there or with the pastor, I'd be happy to set up an appointment to meet together with them and see what we can do to bring about restoration."

"Oh, I see! Well, thanks, but no thanks.

"At any rate, I'll let your pastor know we've had this talk."

This wandering sheep will try another congregation. He should be met with a similar response at each place. If this were to become the practice, there would be far less wandering; church hoppers would be required to stay and face the problems they are trying to avoid.

In some places where I have spoken about this matter, pastors have drawn up a set of guidelines to follow. Why not talk to your local ministerium about it? Even if only two or three congregations go along with the procedure, it would be a marked improvement. Indeed, even if you can get no other church to go along but you make it a practice of returning straying sheep to other shepherds, you could do much by your example to gain respect for discipline among the congregations of your community.

Obviously, if the person has wandered from a liberal church, where the pastor is a wolf in shepherd's clothing, you will do all you can to snatch him away from the clutches of that wolf. But you should always attempt to restore a sheep to a true shepherd. Besides, you get no bargain when a person leaves a church for the wrong reasons.

Consider this. I had just arrived as the new pastor of a congregation when I received a phone call from the pastor of a neighboring church. He asked,

"What can you tell me about Mr. and Mrs. So and So? I understand that they used to be members of your congregation. They've been attending here lately and want to join, but there seems to be something problematic about their past."

I responded,

"I can tell you absolutely nothing. I just arrived; I hardly know my elders' names. But I'll try to find out."

I called him back:

"I asked my elders, and they tell me that the So and Sos were disciplined by our church and removed from the midst. (Actually. at that point I was still using the word "excommunicated ") You'd better talk to them about it. If they are truly repentant we wouldn't mind them uniting with your church, but they have unfinished business here first. We would be glad to restore them upon repentance and then, if they wish us to do so, send them by letter to your church."

"Oh!" he said. "Thanks."

I didn't hear from the pastor again, but some months later I saw him at a pastors' gathering. I asked about the So and Sos.

"Oh," he said. "We took them in anyway, and they have just split our congregation. They took half a dozen families and went to start another church."

Don't expect anything but storms when you take a Jonah into your boat!


Let me say a word about schism. In Titus 3:10 Paul writes, "After counseling him once or twice, give up on a divisive person, and have nothing more to do with him."

This is a vital direction. There should be provision to speed up the disciplinary process in cases of divisive persons. If you linger too long over the process, you may find your church divided. Paul is clear: if the divisive person does not cease his divisive ways after one or two confrontations, remove him.

In cross?congregational discipline, therefore, it is not enough to do what you can at your own church. It is essential, also, to hold other churches responsible to follow Christ's directives. When another congregation refuses to follow the discipline that Christ provided for your member and you do nothing about it, it is not only that other congregation that is lax. If you fail to make every effort to get that congregation to satisfy Christ's demands, you too are guilty, and the care of your own member is seriously lacking. If the other congregation refuses to listen to your biblical directives, then that congregation, no less than an individual believer, should be "removed from the midst."

It is imperative that all these disciplinary steps be taken—and taken with the right attitude.


Where you have certain knowledge that a congregation denies the essentials of Christianity, you should not send persons back. Indeed, you should do all you can to get people out of such "churches." Admittedly, many cases are borderline and not quite so clear. But in the case of a liberal church, it would seem, you have a clear obligation to pursue discipline.

In those instances in which the other congregation rightly responds by exercising discipline, you may be pleasantly surprised to discover brothers where you once wondered about them. In cases where a congregation refuses to pursue discipline on behalf of a member of your congregation and you must declare them to be "no church," the discipline issue itself is what allows you to make that statement. Either way, discipline helps sharpen the focus of an otherwise fuzzy situation.

All inter?congregational discipline must be carried on with the utmost care. Special care must be taken so as not to "take sides" with members of your own congregation but, instead, to make impartial judgments based on the facts.

In cases where you disagree with the judgment of another congregation, you may have to act according to your conscience in ways that differ from that judgment—but only after it has been made perfectly clear that you appreciate that they have rendered judgment. Your reasons for departing from their judgment should be given: and just as when brothers are separated by other differences which grow out of divergent interpretations and applications of the Scriptures, you must continue to recognize the other congregation as a true church of Christ.

This is very different from declaring a church to be no church. In almost every instance, the judgment of the disciplining church should be accepted. Only in cases where the judgment involved matters of conscience should it be disregarded.

To see more of Jay’s books and material go to:

To Order                                                             Go back
Handbook of Church Discipline
Call Timeless Texts At:

on 1/24/2001 Rev. Poirier wrote...            Go back

Dear Mr. Fields,

Thank you for your responses.  Due to a trip out of state on presbyterial matters, I will not be able to begin to process your complaint until next week. I say this lest my silence be mistaken as a failure to respond to your concerns.

Thank you also for the note on Jay Adam's re: prosecuting judicial cases cross-institutionally.  I am very familiar with it having had to use those principles at the local church level.

Alfred J. Poirier     Go back

on 1/25/2001 PeaceMakers wrote...           Go back

Hello all...since both Ken Sande and Rev. Poirier have shown respect and honor for Dr. Jay E. Adams, as do I, Jay said he would help in anyway possible. I offer Jay's servanthood as hope of bring God's peace and growth...

Bill Fields              Go back

Feb. 6, 2001                Go back

Alfred J. Poirier,
Pastor of RMCC, OPC
Chairman of the Board of Directors for Peacemaker Ministries

Dear Mr. Fields,

One function of the Peacemaker Ministries’ Board of Directors is to evaluate and respond to the type of concern that you have expressed regarding Ken Sande.  In order to do so in a fair and thoughtful manner, we request that you follow the guidelines outlined in this letter.

In your email communication of January 24, 2001 you stated:

“I have given you my witness. Should I have been unclear or miscommunicated I would be glad to try and answer your questions. As to credible evidence, as you judge, our website has all the information I have.”

In order to properly evaluate your complaint we will need you to be more specific as to your charges, specifications and biblical support. I urge you to file your charge/s against Ken in the manner similar to that prescribed by the OPC BOD, 3.3. The ARP Book of Discipline also prescribes something similar to the OPC, see ARP Book of Discipline, chapter 5.17. Upon receipt of your charges et al our Board will institute a preliminary investigation similar to that specified in OPC BOD 3.7.

OPC, BOD, 3.3 Adapted For Our Use

Every charge of an offense must: (a) be in written form, (b) set forth the alleged offense, (c) set forth only one alleged offense, (d) set forth references to applicable portions of the Word of God, (e) set forth the serious character of the offense which would demonstrate the need for review by the Peacemaker Ministries’ Board.

Each specification of the facts relied upon to sustain the charge must: (a) be in written form, (b) declare as far as possible, the time, place, and circumstances of the alleged offense, (c) be accompanied with the names of any witnesses and the titles of documents, records, and recordings to be produced.”

We would also encourage you, in order to allow for and encourage good faith dialogue in these sensitive matters, to remove references to Ken and his staff from your web site until this process is over and the Board has had an opportunity to evaluate and respond to your complaint.  Our expectation is that communications between us would be held in confidence throughout this process and not made public on your web site (see your website, “Here’s One Example: Pearl in a Pig’s Snout-Evangelical Hypocrisy”). I’m sure you can understand the biblical reasons for this, Mt. 18.15ff; 1 Tim. 5.19; Jas. 5.11-12; Prov. 18.15.  This last one is significant for peacemaking and should be familiar to you. We practice it in our courts (OPC):

Prov. 18.17 The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.

Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Your brother in Christ,
Alfred J. Poirier                                                  Go back

on 2/7/2001 PeaceMakers replied...     Go back

Rev. Poirier, Thank you for your letter...the materials on our website will stay as this issue with Peacemakers Ministries has been open for several years and Ken et. al. have been aware of our materials and information for sometime.  This became a public issue upon discovering your support of Dr. Dobson on your website, therefore this process will remain public.

You, Ken etc. continue to support Dr. Dobson while he is in open sin for failure to use Matthew 18's full steps to resolve and have judged his/their dispute with the Alexander-Moegerles.  These are open facts.  You have read my statements and witness of these facts.

I believe this meets your criteria for a formal charge...should you choose to remove Dr. Dobson and Focus On The Family from your support and website I believe you will be acting in accordance with God's Word.

May The Father of Christ Jesus through HIS Holy Spirit, bless you,

Bill Fields
                                                              Go back

Feb. 14, 2001                   Go back

Dear Bill,

Greetings in the name of the Lord.

Upon my request of Feb. 6th that you supply us with specific charges, specifications and support in bringing your allegations against Ken, you thanked me and again directed me to your website as a sufficient “presentation of your case.”

I know this may seem to you a full and obvious presentation of your case. Having sat on many judicatories, it is often the case that those bringing allegations against another are unaware of the necessity and nature by which they must frame their allegations before a judicatory. That is why I requested that you frame your concern in a manner that is consistent with the OPC Book of Discipline, 3.3

Every charge of an offense must: (a) be in written form, (b) set forth the alleged offense, (c) set forth only one alleged offense, (d) set forth references to applicable portions of the Word of God, (e) set forth the serious character of the offense which would demonstrate the warrant for a trial.

Each specification of the facts relied upon to sustain the charge must: (a) be in written form, (b) declare as far as possible, the time, place, and circumstances of the alleged offense, (c) be accompanied with the names of any witnesses and the titles of documents, records, and recordings to be produced.”

Scripture directs us Prov. 18.17 The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. Before the Board can question you much less question Ken to get his response to your allegations, we need specifics as to what precisely your charges are as to: time, place and people concerned, chronology of pertinent events, etc.

By not being specific you ask us, in effect, to present your case for you. We are unable to do this.

First, the Board cannot appreciate the significance of or connection between all the various pieces of information you have posted. Secondly, the Board is not capable of “reading your mind” as to what information you think is relevant or not.  We are not standing in your shoes. And no one but yourself is in a position to adequately and accurately represent your concerns and your perspectives or tell your story.

Our desire is to give you and any others bringing complaints before us the best possible opportunity to be understood so that the Board can arrive at an accurate understanding of the truth. If you decide to not present a more detailed allegation, consistent with this request, I will conclude our communications, copy our correspondence to the Board and await their response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Your brother in Christ,
Alfred J. Poirier                                                   Go back

on 2/15/2001 PeaceMakers replied...     Go back

Rev. Poirier, if you can not see the shame and biblical failure in this case, there is nothing I can do to help you, yet I offer again the relevant facts...

Rev. Poirier...what does your church do when steps one and two of Matthew 18 have failed and a member refuses any further participation-rejecting step three-rejecting your stewardhip of God's authority and God's Word?  What would your church do if this person would seemingly only cooperate with a mediation process outside your church and not subject to Christ's authority and Word?  It seems they are to be treated as a non-believer.  Yet you and Peacemaker Ministry treat them as Christians in good standing.

What does your church do when you see another church refuse the Matthew 18 process and clearly refuses to hear step three of Matthew 18?  It seems they are to be treated as a non-church. This is why I sent you Adam's chapter on Cross Congregational Discipline. Yet you and Peacemaker Ministry treat them as a Christian Church in good standing.

Would you be supportive of an organization calling it's self Christian that promotes that person as a Christian/believer?  Would you be supportive if that organization promoted that this person who does not act as a believer, is a part of and supportive of a process that they reject?  Yet you, Peacemaker Ministry, and your church believe yourselves righteous.

You, Ken Sande, your church are not only cooperating but promoting Dr. Dobson...who has rejected all Church Discipline steps and continues to be a member of a kind of church that will not practice Matthew 18.

Ken Sande's stance that Dr. Dobson agreed to mediation and the Alexander-Moegerles didn't therefore there is nothing that can be not false (there had been earlier attempts to Get Dr. Dobson to a Matthew 18 process and he rejected them all -as have all the "churches" he's been a member).  Then after years of attempting the Matthew 18 process, Ken comes into the picture and declares Dr. Dobson's willingness for an unbiblical process (mediation outside the church) declares Dr. Dobson righteous. This is absolutely shameful.

However, even if Ken were accurate and biblical-which is preposterous, when a step in Matthew 18 fails then all that has been witnessed proceeds on to each necessary step till there is Biblical justice and public correction or celebration of reconciliation. Which has not happened nor supported by Ken, you, Peacemaker Ministries, nor your church.

It would be a mistake to believe our dispute is whether Dr. Dobson's willingness for mediation outside of God's Word-Matthew 18 and the Alexander-Moegerles' rejection of again repeating extra-church processes is the full nature of our dispute.

You, Ken, Peacemaker Ministries and your church support Dr. Dobson and cooperate with Dr. Dobson and FOTF knowing full well of their stubborn and persistent refusal of Church Discipline.

Or maybe I can make this simpler for you...

1. There is a dispute with Dr. Dobson and FOTF
2. There has never been a completion of Matthew 18 in this dispute
3. None of the "churches" Dr. Dobson has been/is a member of will exercise Matthew 18 in this dispute-and H.B. London Dr. Dobson's pastor in California, who refused to practice Matthew 18 in this dispute, is now on FOTF staff.
4. You support and promote Dr. Dobson and FOTF on your website as those who are Christians in good standing and who promote the same Matthew 18 process they stubbornly reject.

If you can not see your sin in this then shame on you...

May The Father of Christ Jesus through HIS Holy Spirit, grant repentence...

Bill Fields                               Go back

No response from February 13, 2001  to April 23, 2001

Letter to Peacemaker Ministires 3/23/2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Fields" <>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: Brain Cooper-Officially Terminated: 3-22-01-12:00PM

Brain Cooper-Officially Terminated: 3-22-01-12:00PM by Dr. Dobson and
Focus On The's his story...

Bill Fields

Peacemaker Ministries and His Peace did not respond

April 13, 2001 letter from Bill Fields

Hello all...I just spoke with Jay Adams who greatly encourages that Ken and I "hammer" out this dispute so that we can walk in Christ's unity...Again Jay speaks of Ken's heart being good and in the right direction-I pray mine is as well...

How should we continue...

In light of Christ's cross-may we live in HIS resurrection power

Bill Fields

PeaceMakers Fellowship       Go back

April 23, 2001 Letter from Ken Sande

Dear Bill,

As you know, Jay Adams has recently encouraged both you and me to “hammer out” a resolution of the differences that have surfaced between us. I agree that this would be beneficial to everyone involved, so I would like to explain some of my perspectives and describe some steps I have already taken. Then I would like to offer a suggestion.

As I have reviewed your web site, it is apparent that there are many things on which you and I agree. We believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior, Lord, and King. We believe that he died to deliver us from our sins. We believe that he calls his followers to make every effort to live together in peace and unity. We believe that Jesus commands churches to actively promote peace, and, when members cannot resolve their differences in private, to intervene to facilitate understanding and reconciliation. Finally, we believe that he has given the church the responsibility and authority to make binding ecclesiastical judgments when members refuse to repent of their sins and listen to the counsel of the church. These points of agreement, and especially our common faith in Christ, have eternal and infinitely valuable significance, which eclipses any disagreements that lie between us.

We also agree that many churches are failing to carry out their responsibilities in this area, which often deprives individual Christians of the guidance and discipline they need to overcome sin, resolve their differences, and live at peace. In response to this deficiency, you and I have established and serve two separate ministries, both of which are attempting to encourage and equip churches to rededicate themselves to the ministry of peacemaking. This is another point of significant similarity between us.

At the same time, we have some distinct differences on how we carry out the ministries to which God has called us. We disagree on what went wrong in a particular dispute many years ago, on where the resolution process broke down, and on why the parties failed to reconcile. We disagree on the role that a parachurch ministry can and should play when parties are unable to reconcile and their churches decline to get involved. We disagree on how to relate to such parties today. And we disagree on whether it is edifying to publicize opinions or judgments about such cases.

We have talked about these matters before, and until one of us undergoes a major change in theology, I do not expect these differences to disappear. Even so, I cannot see how it is helpful to the church or honoring to God to continue publicizing these matters. Therefore, I will do whatever I can to lower the intensity and visibility of our differences.

I have already taken a step in that direction. Even before our recent differences surfaced, I was considering a revision to our web site that might have prevented this recent escalation. The section that describes our work with other organizations, and makes implications you object to, has grown so large that we have been unable to keep it properly updated. Moreover, we have learned that the details of these activities are not significant to people who visit our site. Therefore, we have decided to eliminate this detailed information for all of the organizations. We have substituted a simple list of the organizations that have hosted a training event, and a second list of the organizations that have affirmed our Peacemakers Pledge. We have also simplified some of the language that describes the significance of these lists.

We have made these changes because we believe that such simplification is beneficial for our staff and readers, not because we believe that any of the deleted information was inaccurate. If these changes alleviate some of the concerns you have raised, that is a helpful benefit as well.

I would like to suggest one further step that we take by mutual agreement. As you are aware, people frequently confuse our two ministries. And recently many people have been grieved to see that two “peacemaking” ministries are clearly at odds with each other. This confusion and example does not seem to serve any of the people who come to our respective web sites for information and guidance. Therefore, I would like to suggest that you remove all of the present references to Peacemaker Ministries and me from your web site (as far as I know, we have never made any references to you on our web site), and that each of us post mutually acceptable statements of clarification on our web sites. I propose the following language for Peacemaker Ministries’ web site, and similar language for yours, but with the names reversed:

Peacemaker Ministries, founded by Ken Sande, is not connected with PeaceMakers International, Inc., founded by Bill Fields. Although both organizations profess similar goals, neither ministry officially recommends the other’s work because there are currently significant differences in our theology and methodology, which repeated discussions have not adequately resolved. Even so, there is no animosity between us. We encourage you to assess the differences between our organizations for yourself by reading the information that is available on each organization’s web site. (This statement is made by mutual agreement of both organizations.)

If you would like to propose a variation of this wording, please feel free to do so. My goal is to eliminate confusion and acknowledge our differences, but without unnecessary criticism of each other.

I have discussed these actions and suggestions with the committee of our board that is reviewing your complaint, and they fully support them. If you agree with my suggestions, conclude that the changes to our web site alleviate your concerns, and decide to withdraw your complaint, the committee will cease any further action. We pray that this will be the case. Otherwise, they will proceed with their review and make a formal report and recommendation to our entire board in May. The board would then make a final decision and communicate their findings and conclusions to you.

I hope and pray that this proposal provides a step forward. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours in Christ,

Ken Sande
Peacemaker Ministries               Go back

April 23, 2001 Letter to Ken and others...

Dear Ken're right there is "no animosity between us"-and "until one of us undergoes a major change in theology, I do not expect these differences to disappear."

I'm truly broken hearted.  I can't begin to describe...

I'm writing to let you know we got your proposal and have forwarded it on to our fellowship-but I have no hope we can agree with you and we must continue our current walk.  Not wanting to offend God's Holy Spirit I cautiously add there comes a time to have nothing to do with one until there is repentance...I fear, we are reaching such a time.

bill              Go back

June 7, 2001     Go back

Dear Mr. Fields,

Following substantial review of your complaint against Ken Sande and your responses to our correspondence, the Board of directors for Peacemaker Ministries on May 5, 2001, unanimously agreed that consistent with its policies and due process it cannot receive or consider your complaint for two primary reasons: 1] your failure to present a case; and 2] your failure to show good faith.

Failure to present a case:

Our first reason is that you failed to present a case. Though we requested three times that you state clearly your concerns against Ken, you responded each time by refusing to specify actual charges against him and their biblical basis. Instead, you referred us generally to your web site apparently expecting us to attempt to discern, gather, and organize your thoughts for you.

Such an approach does not rise to the threshold level of a cognizable complaint for the following reasons among others:

a. The Board is not capable of "reading your mind" as to what information you think is relevant or not. Even if it could, the Board would violate its objective role as tribunal if it attempted to intuit the significance of or connection between the various pieces of substantial information posted on your website. No one but yourself is positioned to adequately and accurately represent your concerns, state your perspectives, or tell your story. Dispute resolution requires a complete and factually documented complaint to give the complainant the best possible opportunity to be understood and the Board the best opportunity to arrive at an accurate understanding of the truth.

b. Scripture mandates that the person bringing a complaint or accusation present his case clearly and specifically so that the accused has the opportunity to make an informed defense (see 1 Timothy 5:19; Deuteronomy 19:15-18). Since you declined to do so, we do not believe it is biblically appropriate to consider his accusations.

Failure to show good faith:

The second reason your allegations do not rise to the minimal level of a cognizable complaint against is the absence of the requisite good faith throughout this process evidenced by the following:

First, instead of contacting Mr. Sande privately and personally to discuss your concerns, as required by Matthew 18:15, you publicized your accusations against Ken on the Web.

Secondly, unbeknownst to us and without asking our permission, you also publicized on the Web our subsequent correspondence with you. This breaches confidentiality, and since the Web is a public forum, open to believers and unbelievers alike, this stands in violation of 1 Cor. 6.1ff and the spirit of Mt. 18.15-17. Yet, when we asked you to desist from further breaches of privacy, and the confidentiality of the biblical conciliation process, you refused.

Thirdly, instead of giving Mr. Sande an opportunity to hear appropriately hear and consider your concerns privately and offer an explanation, as required by Proverbs 18:17, you not only accused him but you prejudged and condemned him--and all in a public forum. You chose to use some of the most conclusive and condemning phrases found in Scripture against Ken and staff ("blood on  . . . hands and head"). You did this while affirming a sincere desire to have your accusations seriously treated as a responsible complaint.

Given these serious deficiencies in both substance and process, our obedience to biblical standards of justice (see 1 Tim. 5.19; Deuteronomy 19:5-18), does not permit us to entertain these random accusations, or to further process your expressed dissatisfactions with Mr. Ken Sande though obviously passionately held. If you still believe otherwise, you are free to submit a proper complaint, provided you appropriately address each of the deficiencies cited above.


Alfred J. Poirier
Board of Peacemaker Ministries        Go back

 PeaceMakers continues waiting in prayer...

A Brief Summary of PeaceMakers International's practices...

Since 1983 when both the professing Church and Para-church organizations were so filled with corruption Bill Fields founded PeaceMakers International which was granted Illinois non-profit corporation status December 14th 1984 as well as IRS 501 (c) (3)...

1., Inc. (PMI), ( and The Christian Court ( are ministries of our PeaceMakers Fellowship-a duly formed and Biblically based Church with Jesus Christ as the foundation, i.e. local church, with all responsibilities to practice God's Keys to HIS Kingdom. We are not consultants, seminar/workshop leaders--we are brothers and sisters in Christ who walk with those God gives us to whom we bear witness.

2. PMI believes and practices that both Matthew 18 and Revelations 2-3 apply to all entities that profess themselves Christian, (individual professing believer, Christian Churches AND organizations identifying with Christians). There are cases where individuals, local church leadership/members, and denominations have rejected certain steps for reconciliation and should be treated as unbelieving. That stubborn unrepentant entity (individual or organization) must be TREATED as non-believing. (See Handbook of Church Discipline by Jay Adams, Timeless Texts 1-800-814-1045)

3. PMI believes and practices that Matthew 18:16-17 witness' responsibility of "tell it to the church" has both a local Church and universal Church application. Ephesians 5:6-11 "Let no man deceive you with vain empty words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now {are ye} light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit {is} in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose {them}."

a. Therefore, PMI calls for help in recovering the unrepentant and/or warning other believers within the full Body of Christ.

b. There are examples of identifying individuals and churches (Acts 5; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 11:12-15, 1 Timothy 1:15-20; 2 Timothy 2:15-19; Galatians 2:11; 3 John 9-11; Revelations 2-3) beyond a local church.

c. PMI preaches and identifies to the non-believing world the principles of faith, fidelity and purity in all that Christ teaches thereby witnessing and testifying against those who "claim" Christ's name--but are not among us.

d. Others who call themself peacemakers stubbornly reject this principle wrongly hoping they can "earn the right to be heard, by becoming better friends, teaching more seminars, laboring in the fields together, etc." How ungodly/unbiblical, only those of God's Spirit can hear and those who stubbornly refuse to repent/listen to Christ will not hear regardless...1 Corinthians's God's right to be heard--not me, not us, not them and certainly hearing doesn't come by man's wisdom!

4. PMI believes and practices Biblical peacemaking NOT mediation and arbitration. Biblical peacemaking involves the work of God's Holy Spirit revealed in God's Word to establish/re-establish righteousness/justice first between God and mankind in both heart and behavior, Luke 12:13 ff, further expressed in Christian integrity and community among believers. There is a false peace/godliness -- which denies God, (Jeremiah 6:10-17; 2 Timothy 3). PMI repents of using the unbiblical terms, Biblical mediation and arbitration. All efforts at peace based on anything other than Jesus Christ, as the foundation, is wrong. Psychology, sociology, or other "wisdom teachings" may effect civility (false peace) but not righteousness between mankind and God or within God's family. God have mercy on those false teachers teaching a system/program/process without Godly mature shepherding denying God's Holy Spirit and HIS work establishing a false peace...Matthew 18:1-14. This is a major evil today causing untold grief and pain to those with an honest heart seeking God's righteousness & peace.

5. PMI believes and practices true Christians exercise submission and obedience to God's Authority through Jesus Christ in faithful stewarship by those charged as overseers, and with one another (Matthew 18:15-20; Matthew 28:18-20; John 5:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:1-11; Ephesians 4-5; Hebrews 13:7-8, 17).

Go back

Expanded description's practices

Dr. James Dobson: Case Study...

  1. Thou Shalt NOT Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor
  2. Dobson In Danger As Non-Christian
  3. The DOOR: Fracas In The Family - Part One
  4. The DOOR: Who You Gonna Call? PeaceMakers - Part Two
  5. Interview: James Dobson's War On America
  6. The DOOR-Focus On This-Interview with Gil Alexander-Moegerle
  7. James Dobson's War On America:Book Review by Joel Swadesh
  8. Dare To Discipline: Pseudo-Churches Out of Control, by Joel Swadesh
  9. 40 Pastor's Witness Dobson refuses Biblical Accountability
  10. Dr. James Dobson's Shame and Hypocrisy Grows
  11. WARNING: TO: Focus On The Family Employees - Another Witness
  12. Focus On The Family Unequally Yoked with Muslims, Mormons & Catholics
  13. Rev. Ted Haggard Backs Dr. Dobson's unGodly union with Mormons, Muslims, et. al, Inc.